liberal Christians and "God never lies"

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
what about titus 1:2?

liberal Christians who believe some parts aren't historical? I am interested because I also don't believe some parts aren't historical
e.g.
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories


It's not that we think God lies, I think we just have more complicated views of religious authority.

I think many parts of the Bible are legendary. That doesn't necessarily mean fictional or even untrue, but it isn't something we should expect to be rigorously historical as is understood in the modern sense. This is consistent with my own church's approach to understanding the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,074
7,405
✟343,115.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
God doesn't lie, but something doesn't need to be factual to be true. Also, while God doesn't lie, the Scriptures were written and collected by people. As a result there can be additions that actually aren't part of the intended Scriptural message.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: PloverWing
Upvote 0

JohnClay

Married Mouth-Breather
Supporter
Oct 27, 2006
1,129
186
Australia
Visit site
✟443,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I was a YEC then an atheist for 20 years then I was spiritual then I was a liberal Christian and I been born again for a few days. I think my decisions have been due to overwhelming evidence and I believe everything in my life has turned out in the best possible way.

Anyway I believe the Bible is 100% inspired by God but He deliberately put in contradictions, etc, so that logical people would think "the Xmas stories can't be factual so therefore therefore the Bible isn't 100% inspired". That way it takes faith to believe.

I also think Pentecostals should continue to say that hell lasts forever and that God is infinitely loving so that those that use their own worldly logic aren't "saved"

Jesus and I love you! (from the movie "Orgasmo" which is about a Mormon that helps make a inappropriate contento)
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: crossnote
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I was a YEC then an atheist for 20 years then I was spiritual then I was a liberal Christian and I been born again for a few days. I think my decisions have been due to overwhelming evidence and I believe everything in my life has turned out in the best possible way.

Anyway I believe the Bible is 100% insp


Being a liberal Christian does not necessarily involve denying the Bible as an inspired book. We just don't believe it is a magic book or that people that wrote it lost their human agency.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The Bible's purpose is to be used as a spiritual paradigm. Its not intended to be Encylopedia Britannica, or science text, or an archaeological/geological text.

Those who attempt to use it as such, then struggle to fit its words into our contemporary world with its robust understanding of the universe, physics and chemistry. Thus we fall into absurd debates over - The world flooded and killed everyone and all animal life - No it didnt...yes it did.... where's the evidence....the bible says it.

Such arguments, when they have no basis in objective evidence, make Christians look like a bunch of fools who prefer to stick their head in the sand even when presented with a solid scientific platform.

I prefer to be open to new evidence and hang onto the spiritual paradigm - which was the bible's intention in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

crossnote

Berean
Supporter
May 16, 2010
2,903
1,593
So. Cal.
✟250,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Being a liberal Christian does not necessarily involve denying the Bible as an inspired book. We just don't believe it is a magic book or that people that wrote it lost their human agency.
They may see it as 'inspired' sort of like a Hallmark greeting card, but is it God breathed, without error (as God by definition, cannot lie) and truthful in all it states?...are the questions a liberal Christian needs to answer.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
They may see it as 'inspired' sort of like a Hallmark greeting card, but is it God breathed, without error (as God by definition, cannot lie) and truthful in all it states?...are the questions a liberal Christian needs to answer.

No, actually, we don't need to answer those questions. Our faith is not dependent on your approval.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
First, it's a big ambiguous what "liberal Christianity" is. There's some pretty wild stuff out there. The largest group of people who don't accept inerrancy are the Catholics, followed by the "mainline" churches. I think both have similar ideas.

I'd say the position is that God isn't directly the author of the Bible. Rather, God revealed himself in history, through his dealings with Israel, through Jesus' life and teachings, and the experience of the Church after the Resurrection. The Bible was written by humans as a witness to this.

The Bible is a complex book, with history, poetry, prayers, satire (Jonah), and in our view, legends from periods before there were records or live memories. Even the history isn't perfect, any more than any other book written by people is perfect. God is, of course, in control. So we can trust that it's a witness that is good enough that we can learn what he wants us to.
 
Upvote 0

crossnote

Berean
Supporter
May 16, 2010
2,903
1,593
So. Cal.
✟250,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's not that we think God lies, I think we just have more complicated views of religious authority.

I think many parts of the Bible are legendary. That doesn't necessarily mean fictional or even untrue, but it isn't something we should expect to be rigorously historical as is understood in the modern sense. This is consistent with my own church's approach to understanding the Bible.

If that's the case it sounds like the Lutheran Church (esp. ELCA) has strayed a long way from it's founder.

"If a different way to heaven existed, no doubt God would have recorded it, but there is no other way. Therefore let us cling to these words, firmly place and rest our hearts upon them, close our eves and say: Although I had the merit of all saints, the holiness and purity of all virgins, and the piety of St. Peter himself, I would still consider my attainment nothing. Rather I must have a different foundation to build on, namely, these words: God has given His Son so that whosoever believes in Him whom the Father’s love has sent shall be saved. And you must confidently insist that you will be preserved; and you must boldly take your stand on His words, which no devil, hell, or death can suppress. Therefore no matter what happens, you should say: There is God’s Word. This is my rock and anchor. On it I rely, and it remains. Where it remains, I, too, remain; where it goes, I, too, go. The Word must stand, for God cannot lie; and heaven and earth must go to ruins before the most insignificant letter or tittle of His Word remains unfulfilled. Kirchenpostille on John 3:16" -Martin Luther
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

crossnote

Berean
Supporter
May 16, 2010
2,903
1,593
So. Cal.
✟250,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, actually, we don't need to answer those questions. Our faith is not dependent on your approval.
No one said that your faith is dependent on my approval. If it is saving faith it is dependent on God's unerring Word.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
It's probably worth a more direct response to the OP:

Of course not everything is even supposed to be historical. E.g. the Psalms. But of the books starting with Genesis, there are a few points on which there's pretty good agreement outside conservative Protestants. I.e. current Catholic, mainline Protestant and secular scholars:
* The historical books were likely put into their final form during the Exile, when Jews were thinking about just why they ended up being defeated and exiled. These are not history for history's sake, but a story of how God dealt with people. He made them good, but they messed it up, starting with Adam and doing again and again. So the OT is the story of God's covenants with mankind and then Israel, and how God stayed committed to Israel and helped them start over each time. Of course the prophets of the Exile were confident that he'd so it again.

* It's likely that they had historical records back to David and maybe somewhat before. But for earlier events they were depending upon traditions that were only partly historical. Archaeologists don't think even the Exodus happened exactly as recorded, though parts of Israel might well have been slaves in Egypt.

* The NT is on more solid ground, because it was written within 50 - 60 years of the events, and some sooner than that. So we almost certainly know Jesus' teachings and what happened. But even so, you can see different perspectives among the Gospels, and to some extent conflicting historical details.

* If you are committed to inerrancy it's possible to explain away any possible errors and conflicts. With enough imagination you can turn black into white. That's why arguments over this topic are so useless.

* Extreme skepticism is just as much a danger as inerrancy. You'll find all kinds of weird claims, like Jesus was made up hundreds of years later. There's an atheist equivalent to fundamentalism, and lots of just nutty ideas. I'd stick with the kind of thing that is taught in major university courses on the Bible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It is a personal attack because it's implying my faith, and the faith of countless other Christians, is illegitimate.

I am also a Democrat. Being a Democrat and a Christian are not at all a contradiction in my mind.

In America, is the politicization of religion, and the religionizing of politics, that is poisoning the witness to the Gospel of God's love.
Read the link and simply give your counter argument. Is that not simple enough for you to do?
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Read the link and simply give your counter argument. Is that not simple enough for you to do?

He's entitled to his opinion but I don't agree with it. I think his interpretation of the Scriptures is far too narrow and limited.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Read the link and simply give your counter argument. Is that not simple enough for you to do?
Yes, but it's not permitted here. (It would be in the Liberal forum and a couple of others.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
He's entitled to his opinion but I don't agree with it. I think his interpretation of the Scriptures is far too narrow and limited.
I agree that it's fine to disagree but how so or in what specific ways, may I ask?
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I agree that it's fine to disagree but how so or in what specific ways, may I ask?

That would be better discussed on Whosoever Will, May Come. It would likely lead to a discussion that would exceed a simple reply. But to briefly summarize... I do not find the typical American evangelical approach to the Christian religion credible- it is not something I can espouse with any sense of integrity..
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That would be better discussed on Whosoever Will, May Come. It would likely lead to a discussion that would exceed a simple reply. But to briefly summarize... I do not find the typical American evangelical approach to the Christian religion credible- it is not something I can espouse with any sense of integrity..
Fair enough. Perhaps at a later time in a more appropriated setting then.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Fair enough. Perhaps at a later time in a more appropriated setting then.

I used to be a somewhat conservative Christian years ago- I attended a conservative continuing Anglican church. What really influenced my religious journey was reading Pr. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's theology, especially his work on ethics and his final writings from prison. I read Bonhoeffer during my time in the Orthodox Church and it changed the course of my religious life, eventually leading me out of that church and more towards mainline Protestantism and humanism.

I've also been influenced by reading John A.T. Robinson and N.T. Wright, though less so by Wright and more by Robinson. I would like to find a congregation that is more in line with the Rev. Nadia Bolz Weber's thought, but I go off and on to a nearby ELCA church that is somewhat conservative, but it's not ideal and doesn't match up with where I think the Church should be. I'm less interested in the soft-pedalled guilt and more interested in the way a church could be a reconciling place, and I disagree with their practice of excluding children from Communion (as I believe it goes against Christ's direction instructions to the disciples).
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Oldmantook
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's probably worth a more direct response to the OP:

Of course not everything is even supposed to be historical. E.g. the Psalms. But of the books starting with Genesis, there are a few points on which there's pretty good agreement outside conservative Protestants. I.e. current Catholic, mainline Protestant and secular scholars:
* The historical books were likely put into their final form during the Exile, when Jews were thinking about just why they ended up being defeated and exiled. These are not history for history's sake, but a story of how God dealt with people. He made them good, but they messed it up, starting with Adam and doing again and again. So the OT is the story of God's covenants with mankind and then Israel, and how God stayed committed to Israel and helped them start over each time. Of course the prophets of the Exile were confident that he'd so it again.

* It's likely that they had historical records back to David and maybe somewhat before. But for earlier events they were depending upon traditions that were only partly historical. Archaeologists don't think even the Exodus happened exactly as recorded, though parts of Israel might well have been slaves in Egypt.

* The NT is on more solid ground, because it was written within 50 - 60 years of the events, and some sooner than that. So we almost certainly know Jesus' teachings and what happened. But even so, you can see different perspectives among the Gospels, and to some extent conflicting historical details.

* If you are committed to inerrancy it's possible to explain away any possible errors and conflicts. With enough imagination you can turn black into white. That's why arguments over this topic are so useless.

* Extreme skepticism is just as much a danger as inerrancy. You'll find all kinds of weird claims, like Jesus was made up hundreds of years later. There's an atheist equivalent to fundamentalism, and lots of just nutty ideas. I'd stick with the kind of thing that is taught in major university courses on the Bible.
If i understood the OP's post correctly, he wrote that in essence the Bible contains contradictions in order that faith may be established. However that premise is not well-founded as it assumes that faith and facts are mutually exclusive. One can have have a well-informed faith based upon facts. For example, the disciples themselves were eye witnesses to Jesus' death/resurrection and proclaimed the risen Lord as central to the veracity of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah.
It is a slippery slope once one begins to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are factual and which are not.
 
Upvote 0